Kruy,,,you collected a shareholders list early on...what was your intent or what did you do with that list???
Posted by: f1fans Date: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:39:22 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 119404
make sure you give me a ihub name ,so as to keep it out of ugly ppl's hands.
Posted by: kruy Date: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:04:49 PM
In reply to: BigMoneyAtl who wrote msg# 71638 Post # of 119404
FWIW...the attorney I hired actually has worked for the SEC as a regional counselfor 35 years and has prosecuted many penny scams, he said brokers ARE responsible for buying you legitimate shares no matter what their disclaimer says or how they try to word any excuse. They may give you every excuse in the book including saying they are only your agent in the execution of a trade you want, but bottom line, THEY HAVE TO LEGALLY PROVIDE YOU WITH LEGITIMATE SHARES AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING YOU WITH REAL SHARES. Their(brokers) arses are on the line with this one and they know it. E/
Posted by: kruy Date: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:43:06 PM
In reply to: idcc2006 who wrote msg# 71659 Post # of 119404
He is working on a response for me, and should have it done by today or Monday at the latest.
He did say we need to respond to the summons otherwise we fall into a default judgement with a securities fraud count against us if we don't.
He mentioned some of the counts were frivilous.
He also stated we could have this moved to federal jurisdiction if we collectively could come up with enough people to account for $75,000 in initial purchase/damage and were represented collectively as one(one attorney). The fact they were asking only $10K per defendant was keeping it in State Court(Oklahoma) juristiction, and he was not sure of the reason for that without looking into it more.
He noted if this continues on towards litigation beyond this response, we would need to be represented by Oklahoma Atty's, but again, we don't have anything official as to the agenda of the plaintiff, so hard to tell if it will continue. Again, he stated this could be bypassed(getting an Oklahoma Atty) if we get enough people together to claim $75K invested. He stated it would be cheaper at that point to collectively hire one attorney also.
I have not talked to him since wednesday so he may have more info for me as he was going to look into this further, but I will not talk to him until next week.
He also stated this is the first time he has seen such a thing in his entire career, and that no matter what the brokers try to tell you, we have a case against them if they do not supply us with real shares. e/
Posted by: kruy Date: Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:29:36 AM
In reply to: matrix who wrote msg# 78602 Post # of 119404
Everyone should object juristiction here to cover all their bases yet leave them to pursue the full spectrum of procedures including discovery.
That is only prudent and wise no matter what the intent of the lawsuit.
Just checking in here, have a good day all. e/
Posted by: kruy Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:35:02 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 119404
IMPORTANT, Just talked to my atty and am starting to connect the dots here.
I learned that for most of us that deal with brokerages that trade across state lines (such as Ameritrade) they are covered under Federal law, which means most of us have 2 years to litigate this with out brokers before the statute of limitations expires. (as opposed to 3 years for instate)
Anybody starting to see why the brokerages were more than happy to help out to get this dismissed?
I think it may be possible that Megas was trying to get us to beat the statute of limitations by forcing us to make claims against the brokerages and at the same time eliminate our shares so that he can get the stock trading.
My atty is a securities law atty, and does know higher ups at certain brokerages having been a prosecutor for the SEC for 35 years. He said the brokerages were furious about the lawsuit, and now I understand why as it would have forced us to make claims against the brokerages. If most of us allow 2 years from the time we purchased our shares to expire without bringing some sort of action against the brokerages, they are basically off the hook to provide shares. As it stands, they MUST provide shares at this time and that is a matter that can be litigated regardless of waivers or disclaimers by the brokerages.
I am not trying to solicit any business for any atty, but I would suggest everybody take heed of what I just said. Also, I will be starting litigation on my own soon, and if anybody wants to join in on legal action agains Ameritrade, please email me at the email listed on my profile which is hkruy@hotmail.com. I am only interested in those who have Ameritrade accounts as it would be cheaper to higher one lawyer for the same action as doing it independantly, and I will initiate legal action anyway.
AGAIN, I AM ASKING FOR RESPONSES FROM AMERITRADE CLIENTS ONLY. For others with other brokerages, I strongly suggest you seek legal opinion as virtually everyone here will have their limitations expire by this Sept. e/
SLUMDOG 
